Sh. Gurmeet Singh S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh, Kurukshetra V. ITO, Kurukshetra

ITA 680/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4065 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2018
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP DAHIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: B M MONGA SHRI ROHIT KAURA
• Keywords: Tangible material
• Section: 54B; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHA, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.679/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SH. GURDEEP SINGH VS. THE ITO S/O SH. GURBACHAN SINGH WARD 3 457/538, WARD NO. 10 KURUKSHETRA KISHANGARH ROAD, SHAHBAD KURUKSHETRA PAN NO. EDDPS1669K ITA NO.680/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SH. GURMEET SINGH VS. THE ITO S/O SH. GURBACHAN SINGH WARD 3 457/538, WARD NO. 10 KURUKSHETRA KISHANGARH ROAD, SHAHBAD KURUKSHETRA PAN NO. DJMPS1624E ITA NO.681/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SH. GURDEV SINGH VS. THE ITO S/O SH. GURBACHAN SINGH WARD 3 457/538, WARD NO. 10 KURUKSHETRA KISHANGARH ROAD, SHAHBAD KURUKSHETRA PAN NO. DAJPS3452L ITA NO.682/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SH. JASMER SINGH VS. THE ITO S/O SH. JEET SINGH WARD 3 457/538, WARD NO. 10 KURUKSHETRA KISHANGARH ROAD, SHAHBAD KURUKSHETRA PAN NO. DITPS1023P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. B.M. MONGA SHRI. ROHIT KAURA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. SANDEEP DAHIYA DATE OF HEARING : 27/07/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/08/2018 2 ORDER PER BENCH: ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A), KARNAL DT. 14/02/2017. 2. SINCE THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. THE GROUNDS P ERTAINING TO REOPENING OF THE CASE UNDER SECTION 148 IS NOT PRESSED BY THE AS SESSEE. WE SHALL DEAL WITH ITA NO. 679/CHD/2017 AS A LEAD CASE. 2.1 GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 679/CHD/2017: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CAPITAL GAINS ADDITION OF RS. 5,69,96,450/- IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE VITAL FACT THAT LAND SOLD WAS HUF PROPERTY, ACQUIRED BY THE GREAT G RAND FOREFATHERS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE ACTION O F AO WHO TAXED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 5,69,96,450/- ON SALE OF A NCESTRAL PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT TH E LAND BELONGED TO JOINT HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY AND WAS NOT ACQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT OR HIS FATHER AND FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ACTION SIMPLY ON THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS HIMSELF SHOWN CAPITAL GAINS IN HIS INDIVIDUAL R ETURN. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE DISALLOW ANCE OF EXEMPTION AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,69,96,450/- UNDER SECTION 54B ON THE GROUND THAT THE INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS BEEN MADE IN TH E NAME OF SON (MEMBER OF HUF) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE INVESTM ENT FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54B HAS BEEN MADE BY APPELLANT (FATHER) OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE LAND. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE UPHOLDIN G THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO WITHOUT FULFILLING THE MANDATE OF SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF AP PEAL OF HUF AND STRICTLY IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD T HE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B ON THE GROUNDS THAT INVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF SON WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE F ACT THAT THE INVESTMENT OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B HAS BEEN MADE BY APPELLA NT (FATHER) OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE JHAMBRA WITH OTHER THREE CO-OWN ERS AS PER THE SALE DEED DT. 10/10/2012. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ACT ION OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS T HE NEW AGRICULTURE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE SON OF THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS 3 ALSO DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE LAND @ RS. 30,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 50,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE PROPERTY IS BEING HELD IN THE NAME OF HUF AND THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON BEING CO-PARCENARIES OF THE HUF THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54B. 5. BEFORE US IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD.AR THAT THE I SSUE OF OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE REVENUE. LD. D R ARGUED THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS A HUF PROPER TY BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY IN HIS INDIVIDUAL NAME. IT WAS AR GUED THAT EVEN BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BRING ABOU T ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO PROVE THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS INDEED THE P ROPERTY OF THE HUF. 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD BEFORE US AND FI ND THAT, WHILE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AN HUF PROPER TY HE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENT TO THAT EXTENT AND THE REVENUE HAS ALS O NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD WHICH TRULY DEPICT THE DETAILS OF OWNERSHIP. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTIONS TO BOTH THE PARTIES TO ESTABLISH THE OWN ERSHIP OF THE ASSET I.E. LAND IN QUESTION AND THEN REVENUE TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF E LIGIBILITY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F. 7. AS A RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS SET ASIDE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :07/08/2018 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR